This article is so full of baseless science, incorporated presumptions and conclusory assertions that the only thing which is really clear is the author's agenda. Why spend so much time speculating about what it means, telling an audience why it proves non-gay argument wrong, without discussing the merits of the report itself?

Neuroscience takes a much different approach, and leans heavily towards genetic influences. As discussed by John P.J. Pinel, a leading neuroscientist, 54% of monozygotic twins whose families have a history of homosexuality will be biologically gay (developing the Central Nervous System of a female, with a male body, to put it simply), and 24% of bi-zygotic twins will same family history will be gay. This evidennce comes from families with brothers, and is completely unrelated to "mothers, aunts, female relatives" or whatever. What it does clearly indicate is that the genetic tendency homosexuality in a diverse population is to decrease over time, and that, given the numbers of persons claiming to be gay in this country, only 50 - 60% are "biologically" gay (and it is usually very obvious, as the androgenous nature of male bodies with female nervous system characteristics is detectable by even the untrained eye). It does not matter to me if someone is gay, much less biologically or culturally gay but to wontonly dismiss cultural or environmental influences on gayness is a lie. In fact, there is evidence that evolution can drive gayness, particularly in species that begin to die out, and procreation between two different sexes is not possible.

There is little or no evidence supporting that either partner's genetics dictate what genetic switches are "thrown" in particular people. Further, there is no comprehensive study which can derive the conclusions you've drawn that cannot be tampered with by subject matters intending to guide the tests to certain results - polluting the results for a political agenda.

So many holes in the stream-of-consciousness reasoning in this article its hard to address all the flaws, however, I will admit that it should generate interesting dialogue.

So many holes in the stream-of-consciousness reasoning in this article its hard to address all the flaws...

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.

The article summarizes and links to the study; how exactly is it then "baseless"? If you disagree with the methods or conclusions of the study, fine, go ahead and state them, but merely dismissing it out of hand doesn't cut it. Did you even bother to read the study?

LMoE

eofiss:

So many holes in the stream-of-consciousness reasoning in this article its hard to address all the flaws...

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.

Ha. QFT.

Wassabi, I'm sorry, but that post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Probably worth more trouble than its worth, but it seems evident my last post wasn't clear.

-The study incorporates the presumption that the gays in our society are all gay for the same reason (despite its disclaimer).

-The authors devised a theory, and then combed and harvested previously collected data to support their theory, further polluting the focus of the control group used to comprise the data. Thus, despite any disclaimers, there was absolutely no way to impose controls on the study group, or even to edit the 'database' of information for some semblence of controlled application. Basically its just a mathematical theory of social behavior using Bayesian statistics. We all know how statistics can be used, right?

-A big, big problem is the failure to recognize that the human brain - which includes social centers and mirror neurons for mimmicking behaviors - are programmable, not "some of the time" but ALL of the time, as a matter of evolutionary survival.

-Study ignores that human are cognitively driven, sentient animals capable of rational choice. This is important because it ignores that some people are selecting homosexuality by choice (or even bisexuality) AND ignores that females choices of mates are socially driven (despite any genetic predisposition imposed by the authors), although the latter is post-copulatory.

-Study ignores that effeminate physical characteristics are passed from male to male and from female to female: Offspring favor the gender as a matter of evolutionary survival. There is NO evidence that this new-fangled "antagonistic selection" overrides this dominating characteristic of genetic expression, or that this particular characteristic of genetic expression transmutes from the animal kingdom to humans (who have a much more highly developed central nervous system).

-The fact that it doesn't explain female homosexuality, or even compare per capita rates, dramatically undermines the plausibility of the whole theory.

-The bottom line is that the study completely avoids a number of easier, more plausible answers to a question that doesn't really matter anyway, and whose purpose is suspect (who cares why someone is gay, or how many per capita gays there are?)

For the most part, those aren't fair criticisms. You seem to be attributing an absolutism to the study that simply isn't there. There is no presumption that homosexuality has a single cause. Where do you get that? It isn't meant to subvert the idea of human sentience or the existence of female sexuality or any of those things. All they are saying is the data showed a link between female kin fecundity and male homosexuality, and that this link fits with antogonistic selection models. That's it. They don't claim that homosexuality isn't multifactorial, and nowhere does the paper bill itself as a Grand Unifying Theorem of Gay. They make none of the assumptions you accuse them of making.

Also, if you think they selectively chose source data to fit their model ... what other source data should they have used? Are you saying you know of a better sample set that they deliberately ignored? Or, is there a methodological flaw in their statistical analysis? If you want to allege either is actually true, why don't you specify that for us?

I didn't think your post warranted an additional response, but since this thread has received an editor's pick I will.

These are fair criticisms, you do not seem to have read the article very closely, nor the associated studies. As an example, the very first line initiates the presumption that homosexuality has a genetic cause as a basis for the study.

To lay it out on a silver platter for you, the scientific methodology used by the report has problems, I said it the first time, I laid it out the second time, and am restating it here. I took for granted that readers would understand these basic principles.

The assumptions I listed are incorporated in the structure of the study, not to be rude, please understand the difference between incorporating something (ie "implied", or "loaded fact") versus making an explicit statement.

What is the point of a study that dismisses out of hand an entire realm of contributing factors? It's different if you're studying one aspect of a relationship and can prove an inverst relationship, but this isn't economics (because all other things are not held steady as in economic relationships), but doing so precludes you from making the broad assertions that this study does. This is what makes the study useless, and the 'science' (which is really just a statistical analysis, and not science at all) baseless.

Skipping the more plausible and explainable answers to the questions is bad enough, but to have to suspend a number of other laws of genetic behavior to subscribe to this 'theory' turns this all into one really bad joke.

Ok, I have to give props to Saletan as well. The problems I have are with the study itself, and only a respectable disagreement with this summary article. It's refreshing to see authors actually read replies and give responses, and deserves respect in my opinion.

Props to Saletan for not hiding behind a cyber-curtain.

WassabiCracker:

I didn't think your post warranted an additional response, but since this thread has received an editor's pick I will.

These are fair criticisms, you do not seem to have read the article very closely, nor the associated studies. As an example, the very first line initiates the presumption that homosexuality has a genetic cause as a basis for the study.

You forgot to mention though, they cited their sources. Every scientific paper starts with "presumptions". You seem to think that those presumptions are unfounded. Is it because the results of the source literature cited collectively don't justify the presumption, or because there are methodological problems with those papers? Which is it?

It's easy to say you don't like the results of a scientific paper. It's a lot harder to explain why others shouldn't.

WassabiCracker:

To lay it out on a silver platter for you, the scientific methodology used by the report has problems, I said it the first time, I laid it out the second time, and am restating it here. I took for granted that readers would understand these basic principles.

The assumptions I listed are incorporated in the structure of the study, not to be rude, please understand the difference between incorporating something (ie "implied", or "loaded fact") versus making an explicit statement.

See above. The "assumptions" in the paper come from source literature.

WassabiCracker:

What is the point of a study that dismisses out of hand an entire realm of contributing factors? It's different if you're studying one aspect of a relationship and can prove an inverst relationship, but this isn't economics (because all other things are not held steady as in economic relationships), but doing so precludes you from making the broad assertions that this study does. This is what makes the study useless, and the 'science' (which is really just a statistical analysis, and not science at all) baseless.

What "contributing factors" were dismissed. Name even one...

Nobody said other factors can't influence homosexuality. All the authors said was that their evidence shows a causal correlation between homosexuality and a gene with an antognistic selection model. Do you know what that means? It doesn't mean other factors are not involved.

WassabiCracker:

Skipping the more plausible and explainable answers to the questions is bad enough,

Like what? If you want to level that charge, common sense demands you actually say what your more plausible alternate explanation for the data is.

WassabiCracker:

but to have to suspend a number of other laws of genetic behavior to subscribe to this 'theory' turns this all into one really bad joke.

I'm not a population geneticist, but I am a molecular geneticist, and I have no idea what laws you think were violated. Again, if you want to level that charge, you're going to have to justify it.

In another post in the forum, I found a pretty good example of how a scientist criticizes a scientific paper. He has specific criticisms, and explains them in detail. He also believes an alternate hypothesis was unfairly disregarded, but he bothers to tell us what that is.

<link>